The term 'all is fair in love and war' is beyond incorrect. Since very early on, civilizations have been attempting to regulate warfare. For example, "the Hindu Mahabharata, written around 200 B.C., urged warriors not to harm surrendered or incapacitated foes while the ancient Hindu Code of Manu and Second Lateran Council held in 1139 A.D. outlawed, or at least attempted to outlaw, the use of barbed or poisonous arrows and the crossbow, respectively" (Gualdoni). Though the general concept of war has remained the same throughout the years, the way it is conducted now is almost incomparable. The rise in the popularity of guns, and the development of technology has paved the way for an entirely new era of war. The jus in bello (international humanitarian law) were adopted by the Geneva Conventions, setting international war laws for sovereign states (Rivkin and Casey). As the United States is one of the most respected countries, we hold ourselves at a higher standard of conduct than most other countries. All countries are obliged to follow the jus in bello; however, the United States has set itself apart by also implementing standing rules of engagement (SROE). These additional rules are included in a written document, authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The standing rules of engagement "establish the basic policies and procedures governing the actions that ground commanders can take during all forms of military operations --  ranging from terrorist attacks to prolonged conflict beyond the borders of the United States" (Addicott 16). These rules tend to be slightly broad, as they create a template for the creation of rules of engagement, or ROE. As defined by Lieutenant Colonel David Bolgiano, the rules of engagement serve to "set forth the parameters of when, how, for what duration and magnitude and geographical location, and against what targets our forces can employ force, generally deadly force  ...  in a theater of operations" (Bolgiano, Conway, Myers, Solis and White). The rules of engagement are more specific documents than the more universal standing rules of engagement, as they pertain to specific missions. Rules of engagement always stem from the standing rules of engagement, and the Law of War. From there, they are generally developed from national policy, which is put into context with the situation at hand, considering geography, culture, and the nature of the enemy forces (Addicott 18). The rules are carefully constructed to efficiently carry out the mission, while avoiding legal trouble and bad publicity at all costs. They need to be reviewed thoroughly as these rules can be the difference between life and death for American soldiers. Those drafting the documents range from the President to Commanders at War, as people of various ranks can set these rules of engagement. Upon completion, the rules are evaluated by the Secretary of Defense, who legitimizes them to be fulfilled. Once these rules are set, they are to be considered law, potentially providing grounds for an unwarranted criminal offense. If the disobedience of a rule of engagement is not punishable by law, the offender is dealt a punishment designated by the military command. When looking at these sets of rules, it is easy to note how they can negatively affect those who are trying to do the right thing. When some follow these rules and others don't, it provides an upper hand for one of the conflicted parties. It is also notable that the focus these rules put on the protection of civilians is unrealistic, and is inadvertently putting many other lives at risk, including American soldiers. The standing rules of engagement and its following tier need to be edited in order to better prevent providing opportunity to terror groups, and to protect American soldiers as best as possible by removing some of the focus from civilians.

To fully understand the topic, it is important to put the opposing positive arguments of the rules of engagement in conversation with the arguments against it. There are some obvious benefits to the regulation of warfare, including guidelines for the fighting and such. It is notable to point out that not all aspects of the rules of war need revision, and that they are even beneficial to all parties involved in war. A primary example of this is the ban on any form of inhumane weapons. Weapons such as 'dum-dum bullets,' chemical and biological weapons are "banned outright on the basis that the military benefits of their use can never be proportionate to the suffering caused" (Byers). Rules like these are very black and white and can actually benefit people of the entire world. Another aspect of the rules that appear to be positive is the attempt to protect civilian lives. It may seem that larger scale bombings, time spent with civilians, and other similar actions would be of benefit to everyone. This is an ignorant stance on the matter as it essentially does more harm than good for good people. Though fewer civilians are at risk, military members' lives become increasingly endangered. For example, "in 1991, a number of coalition planes (RAF Tornados especially) were lost to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire because they were bombing from low altitudes in order to reduce civilian casualties. Less accurate high-altitude strikes by B-52s were restricted to targets well clear of civilian areas" (Byers). Other than for the obvious reason of keeping innocent people safe, there are other reasons why the American government is so concerned with protecting civilian lives. The unintentional deaths of civilians could potentially anger the government and the populace of the country where the war is conducted. Accompanying this possibility, there is also a potential for the media to publicly broadcast the calamity. These same concerns are explicitly laid out in a Marine Corps Student Handout that says "falling within the array of political concerns are such issues as the influence of international public opinion, particularly how it is affected by media coverage of a specific operation, the effect of host country law, and the presence of status of forces agreements (SOFAs)" (United States Marine Corps). These are unreasonable interests because they are the same worries that have existed in most every war that has ever occurred (excluding media concern prior to existence). To put American lives at further risk by placing extra precautions on civilian lives does not make sense if most of the concern lies with public image. If American soldiers made similar mistakes in the past and the country maintained high international respect, why change the system now? It is evident that laws pertaining to the extra protections of civilian lives need to be altered to help defend as many lives as possible.

Though the sets of rules are rather vague, they still provide opportunity for enemies to capitalize on as enemies can take advantage of most any guidelines a military has to abide by. All parties involved in international conflict are expected to uphold the rules set by the jus in bello. It is unreasonable for one party to have to strictly follow this set, while the other is able to ignore them all together. For instance, terror groups are expected to follow the same rules of war, but there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions other than the people they are fighting. One example of this injustice occurred late in 2012, where the Taliban took down a helicopter filled with 30 American soldiers. Prior to the mass killing, the crew of another gunship had spotted two men on the move, and were denied the authorization to shoot and instructed to maintain surveillance. A separate pilot also had the opportunity to fire at the shooter, but due to the rules of engagement, was not able to directly fire at the building (Scarborough). The soldiers had to wait until they were engaged before engaging themselves. Because of this, an avoidable tragedy of 30 Americans deaths ensued. Were terrorists held to the same standards as actual countries, then events like those mentioned above would not occur. The absence of structure in war for terror groups provides for an uneven playing ground for both sides, as parameters set only hinder those who follow them. Were the rules to be revised, there should be an inclusion of special circumstances when necessary. 

 Death is an unavoidable factor of war. Casualties on both sides are inevitable, and often, civilians are harmed in the process. Currently, the United States is combating terror groups overseas in the Middle East. Many of these terror groups are made up of citizens of their area who wear the same clothes as everyone else, even when in combat. To just interact with civilians believed to be associated with a target requires specific training set by the rules of engagement (Addicott 19). The terror groups capitalize on this and do their best to assimilate with average Middle Eastern citizens for protection purposes. Terrorists often surround themselves with civilians to avoid being bombed altogether. According to the Washington Post, there have been several instances where permission to shoot from a plane was denied, even when there were confirmed men with weapons (Scarborough). Terrorists have known about the international push for civilian safety, and have used that to their own benefit. If there are confirmed enemies, it is outrageous that they are able to walk because civilians surround them. To further protect civilians in Afghanistan specifically, the Afghan and US Presidents agreed to a 'safety agreement,' mandating US troops to avoid Afghan dwellings altogether (Scarborough). If troops are not allowed to attack from above, or set up camp nearby the location in question, their job becomes more difficult than it already was. These rules often make the jobs of US soldiers increasingly difficult. One set of rules of engagement set forth by "current administration demand that no military attack via air or ground can be launched unless it can be guaranteed that no civilians will be killed, no collateral damage will occur. Airstrikes cannot be launched unless the person authorizing the strike is willing to declare on the record that there will be no collateral damage or face prosecution" (Bravo). For someone to be legally prosecuted for what most people would perceive as that person's job is appalling. It is understandable that people are concerned with the safety of civilians; however, it does not make sense to go above and beyond when it inhibits the ability of a military to get the job done.

A separate, but arguably most important fault of any rules set for war is the waste of the lives trying to do what is right. Guidelines can add a whole new difficulty to war, and if they put heroes' lives at risk because of these difficulties, that is unacceptable. The emphasis placed on civilians leads to more factors for consideration for soldiers when making any wartime decision. There are various examples of this emphasized civilian focus leading to increased danger for American soldiers. As said by Addicott, "Although all rules of engagement recognize the inherent right of self-defense if attacked by an enemy, all rules of engagement center on the concept of employing minimum force to complete any given activity, even at the expense of increased levels of harm to friendly forces" (Addicott 16). To put these lives at an even higher risk than need be should be a crime in itself. There are numerous reports of the rules of engagement failing US soldiers. One example was when US soldiers surrounded a village containing suspected high-threat terrorists, and a car full of men attempted to break through the blockade. A denied request to shoot from the US military led to the pursuit of this car, until it was finally surrounded. As soon as the suspects exited the car, one let a bomb go off resulting in the death of an American soldier (French 31). Based on thorough assessment of the people in the car, the senior officer had called in with what would seem as sufficient evidence to engage the suspect. However, as the request went through the chain of command, a denial based on lack of evidence resulted in the loss of another American hero. If a soldier was able to act based on the knowledge they possessed, it is truly disappointing to think how many American lives could have potentially been saved. The sets of rules of war and engagement seem to be more concerned with civilian lives, than the lives of those protecting these very civilians.

Because both the standing rules of engagement and the rules of engagement are always classified documents, it is impossible to attack direct rules. Instead, we are able to attack what we know about these rules through the stories of war and public reports from military servicemen. When analyzing the sets of rules that mandate the parameters of war, it is easy to see that there is room for improvement. Based on the research included above, it is evident that these rules provide for an uneven playing field that is created when these rules cannot be supremely enforced. Terror groups cannot be subjected to the same rules as the rest of the world, as there is no one to hold them accountable. It is important to also note that absolute protection of all civilians is unrealistic, and that factors such as that put others lives at severe risk. It is essential to keep as many people safe as possible in times of war, however, if the protection of one group leads to increased danger for another, it is clear that revision is past due. Even when put into context with the war in Vietnam, "rules of engagement displayed a pronounced disregard for the vulnerability of American forces on the field of combat" (The Ties that Bind). Americans are subjected to increased risk because of the rules of engagement, which is unacceptable. The standing rules of engagement and its following tier need to be edited in order to better prevent providing opportunity to terror groups, and to protect American soldiers as best as possible by removing some of the focus from civilians.

